Currently US taxes are 26% of GDP, the EU is 35.7% and the OECD is 34.8%. Canada is 32.2% and Mexico is 19.7%. 26.6 puts us right on the bottom edge of industrialized nations, any less and we will be squarely in third world numbers, thus the reason we have huge deficits and strain so badly to maintain a decent social safety net. Any tax plan put forward needs to raise our tax level a few points if we want to afford UHC, social security, Medicaid or other government programs. 35% seems to be the middle of the road number...to reach that we will have to raise taxes on the 1%, it cant all come from the middle and working class.

Currently US taxes are 26% of GDP, the EU is 35.7% and the OECD is 34.8%. Canada is 32.2% and Mexico is 19.7%. 26.6 puts us right on the bottom edge of industrialized nations, any less and we will be squarely in third world numbers, thus the reason we have huge deficits and strain so badly to maintain a decent social safety net. Any tax plan put forward needs to raise our tax level a few points if we want to afford UHC, social security, Medicaid or other government programs. 35% seems to be the middle of the road number...to reach that we will have to raise taxes on the 1%, it cant all come from the middle and working class.

the idea is not to just keep you alive, but to provide an incentive to be productive. consumption taxes, if done in excess, lead to black market conditions for lower income individuals. this, of course, will lead to more crime. that's why I based this thread on taxing income - and I included social security and medicare taxes which now apply (most tax proposals do not).

I do not follow the reasoning in this post. Taxing people on their consumption RATHER than their income WOULD give them a POWERFUL incentive to be more productive and to earn a higher income. ANY income tax, no matter how low, REDUCES the incentive to work, to at least some degree. In fact, this is one of the stronger arguments in FAVOR of a consumption tax.

I agree. A progressive income tax is the fairest and simplest way of ensuring revenue is sufficient for the purpose, and that the disadvantaged in society do not have to shoulder an even greater burden.

The record keeping alone necessary for a progressive consumption tax would be a nightmare, not to mention the bureaucratic costs associated with administering and policing the system.

I also do not 'follow' this post. Why would there be any massive record-keeping needed for a progressive consumption tax? It is actually very EASY to keep track of a person's consumption vs saving. Say I earned $50,000 last year, from ALL my sources of income. And say I ADDED $10,000 to my savings. Then I spent $40,000 on consumption. And, if the first $20,000 of consumption was allowed to be tax-free, I would owe taxes on the $20,000 of consumption OVER that.

if I read the charts correctly, this includes all taxes - federal, state and local. is that correct?

Yeah, total tax burden as a percent of GDP. Our nearly 4% defense spending(not including our VA and veterans spending) takes a huge chunk of our discretionary budget. States competing with other states by gutting their tax bases is not helping us at all either.

I do not follow the reasoning in this post. Taxing people on their consumption RATHER than their income WOULD give them a POWERFUL incentive to be more productive and to earn a higher income. ANY income tax, no matter how low, REDUCES the incentive to work, to at least some degree. In fact, this is one of the stronger arguments in FAVOR of a consumption tax.

Your reasoning here seems precisely upside down to me.

don't take my comment wrong. if you want to tax discretionary income with a flat tax - I have no problem with that as long as it's a reasonable tax. but, when you're in my position, you don't have much, if any discretionary income. and, I'm not the only one in that position. this would end up adding costs to all - even those who currently pay little (or no) taxes.

I also do not 'follow' this post. Why would there be any massive record-keeping needed for a progressive consumption tax? It is actually very EASY to keep track of a person's consumption vs saving. Say I earned $50,000 last year, from ALL my sources of income. And say I ADDED $10,000 to my savings. Then I spent $40,000 on consumption. And, if the first $20,000 of consumption was allowed to be tax-free, I would owe taxes on the $20,000 of consumption OVER that.

How does that work on a guy like Buffet, he makes over a billion a year and does not spend shit on consumption, paid for little house, small salary, drives a fucking used car. Consumption tax near zero.

How does that work on a guy like Buffet, he makes over a billion a year and does not spend shit on consumption, paid for little house, small salary, drives a fucking used car. Consumption tax near zero.

That's all true. But then, Warren Buffett ALREADY pays a much lower tax rate than his secretary/receptionist, as he himself has pointed out. If you are asking ME, personally, I would combine a progressive consumption tax with a WEALTH tax, or would certainly at least RAISE the inheritance/estate tax back to the levels it was formerly at. Mr. Buffett's low-consumption lifestyle is actually to be APPLAUDED, wouldn't you say? Much more admirable than tycoons showing off their wealth by throwing $2 million birthday parties for their trophy wives, no?

That's all true. But then, Warren Buffett ALREADY pays a much lower tax rate than his secretary/receptionist, as he himself has pointed out. If you are asking ME, personally, I would combine a progressive consumption tax with a WEALTH tax, or would certainly at least RAISE the inheritance/estate tax back to the levels it was formerly at. Mr. Buffett's low-consumption lifestyle is actually to be APPLAUDED, wouldn't you say? Much more admirable than tycoons showing off their wealth by throwing $2 million birthday parties for their trophy wives, no?

I agree, but he would be dodging the hell out of any consumption tax. I am ok with an AMT tax, increased cap gains taxes and huge inheritance taxes on fortunes over a billion dollars.